I think you make growth sound easier than it is. Sure, for many who have come over to Substack with a big following, they have seen strong and solid growth. For someone not in that position, growth is extremely difficult, and especially having walked away entirely from social media. I can’t stand the social media promotion and effort it takes to try to get maybe one new subscriber, however, growth through Substack alone is also very difficult unless I want to spend most of my time, referring and cross-promoting and commenting, which is beginning to feel like social media all over again. You do a great job promoting the big fish on Substack. It’s us small guys and gals who struggle more than I think you realize.
So many of Substack’s success stories and tips on growing do seem to be like, “Step 1: Write. Step 2: Bring over 100,000 people who already followed you on another platform.” Which is funny, but also a little discouraging. What would Substack promotion of “small fish” look like, though? Not sure there’s any easy solution, but interested in ideas.
I wrote my book 2013 -2018 and serialised it weekly in 100 issues at:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/author/austrian-peter/ Then the site owner, Jim Quinn, asked me to continue and write a weekly 'Letter from Great Britain' for his American readers who were not well informed about us nutters over the pond. This went well and by commenting on other sites like ZeroHedge etc I obtained around 600 readers who asked for a PDF of my book.
In February 2022 a commenter at TBP suggested I start a Substack and sent a link, and off I went - posting on SS and TBP each week. I now comment on other blogs, with a link to one of my Letters, and this is growing steadily. Every week I get some 10 or so referrals from the Substack network - so it is working for me.
That's also what I was trying to get at. Most of the accolades are toward people who have huge followings. The highlighted writers are the successful ones. Not that we want to focus on a lack of success but I guess it just feels daunting and back to social media type self promotion.
All one needs to do is look back at how they started, when they needed traction-they offered mentorships, even grants, to emerging writers. They could revamp the way they highlight substacks to not favour those with under 500 subscribers, they could dig deeper and highlight substacks that are more niche. There's a ton of things they can do instead of becoming what they were supposedly started out as an alternative to. I've been on this for 2 years and have watched it become another predictable platform, and won't be surprised when it runs the course we've seen with every other digital platform...
I agree, Linda, and just wrote something similar. I'm disappointed that Substack is going that way. The idea of a newsletter is that you build your own following made up of people who like what they read and want to be there.
Building a following may be slower, but it's more honest than following someone in hopes that they'll follow you. I've never felt good about going that route. It's why I left Medium to come here.
Hi Linda! I'm sorry that we've made you feel this way. What in particular about recommendations and referrals feels like they are prioritizing writers with big followings? We have actually seen the opposite with recommendations (they've helped once-smaller writers grow and build an audience that they couldn't otherwise more than they've helped the "big fish") and we have designed referrals to do the same. (Lenny, mentioned here, was not a writer before starting his newsletter btw. He built from scratch!)
We also have a post coming out soon from the person in charge of growing writers' audiences here at Substack recapping all that we've done to help writers in the last year - both things like cross-posts and recommendations that you take some action in setting up, and other things that work on auto-pilot for you without any work from the writer.
Again, I am sorry that I'm maybe being a bit dense here! We just really care about all writers and design our products to help the bigger names and the emergent ones, and am keen to understand more about where the disconnect is showing up.
Recommendations and referrals, in and of itself, isn't prioritizing writers with big followings. It's feeling like I need to spend much time on recommending and referring and connecting that is beginning to feel like social media all over again. Some of the offerings and suggestions feel like they are for much larger subscription bases. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I continually read about someone bringing over a large following. I get that not everyone can be successful and it takes work to get there. The Chat option isn't viable for me. The Boost option I don't believe is viable as I am too small. Getting recommended as a Substack Read? Maybe down the line? Not sure how you determine that. Anyway, not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I'm a bit frustrated with the process is all but will continue writing and sharing and building a community here, one writer at a time.
I agree, Linda, and I don't want to be a downer, either. I really love most everything about Substack, including the information and feedback from the Substack crew, and I'm not at all against promoting writers I admire here. In fact, I do it as often as I can, including them as recommendations, or as part of my blog rolls, or in comments on their pages or mine.
What worries me is that those things are now becoming Substack-sanctioned competitions, and the writers with the most recommendations or boosts or whatever, will always have an advantage over everyone else.
My feeling is that Substack should make things like Recommendations and Blogrolls available but shouldn't be in the business of running them.
Sharing and caring will always be the best part of building a Substack community, and I think it works well when it remains organic, with writers sincerely promoting their favorites as a courtesy and not as part of an organizational plan.
One look at the mess Medium made of it should be enough to tell the powers at Substack they're on the wrong track.
That’s exactly what I feel as well. It seems like the only way to make it on substack is if you had a huge group on Twitter and you just transfer them over. If you’re organically trying to start on substack without the fear of being kicked off by the big social media platforms it feels like I’m pouring time into nothing. Kind of feels like I should just write into a journal, because the same number of people are reading it lol.
There’s definitely some truth in what you say, Linda. I love Substack but I do notice they seem to mostly highlight big names who’ve pulled their thousands of subscribers from other platforms to SS. Nothing inherently wrong with that. And I do see an important difference between SS and regular social media given that it’s exclusively about writers and readers and generally the vibe seems supportive. But yeah: I’d like to see more Stackers who started with 20 friends/family and now have 500 free subs with 65 paying; stuff like that. It’s a rough go for sure; it’s slow. I started with about 50 in late august. Four months later I have 215 subs, 20 paying. I’m growing, for sure. But slowly.
Linda, I feel your pain b/c I was there once too. (We all were at some point, right?) I'm not one of the big Substack authors, but I've achieved enough of a level of success that I've benefited hugely from the recommendations and other tools that Substack provides and know how effective they can be. If you want to reach out, email me at halfmarathons@substack.com and I'd be happy to help in any way I can.
In the meantime, let me recommend the best Substack newsletter I've come across that deals with exactly this conundrum: Catherine Baab-Muguria's 'Poe Can Save Your Life,' which chronicles the challenges Edgar Allen Poe had selling his own work. It's brilliant, and you can find it here: https://poecansaveyourlife.substack.com
Thanks for recommending 'Poe Can Save Your Life'. I love it and probably wouldn't have found it otherwise. I'm all for recommending newsletters that speak to us this way. I just don't want us to get into recommending everyone just so they'll recommend me. Then it turns into a contest, complete with hard feelings, etc. and I would hate to see Substack devolve into that sort of space.
Maybe. My approach with recommendations is that I recommend only newsletters that I'm genuinely enthusiastic about and read; I wouldn't expect anyone to recommend mine unless they felt the same way. For me, it's a win-win, and it's fun. As long as you treat it that way, I don't see how they can be anything but a boon.
Yes, exactly. That's my approach, too. My point is, we already do this on our own. Substack should encourage it, but should they be in the business of institutionalizing it? Maybe I'm reading what they're doing all wrong, but I see some problems ahead if that's the case.
It's worth trying -- you can always turn it off later. Also worth keeping in mind: it's all voluntary, it's all opt-in. No one can force you to recommend any newsletter or publication you don't want to (you have to choose each one individually in your dashboard), and vice-versa.
I can totally understand your perspective here, but it’s actually a lot easier than you may think. Trying to get a new subscriber from Twitter or Instagram is a pretty long path, but a user already on Substack is much easier to coax since they’re already using the platform.
I didn't come to Substack to join a club. Is that the way it will be now? A never-ending round of Substackers giving thumbs up to other Substackers--like they do at Medium? There will always be too many who are left out for one reason or another. It's a competition, no matter how you look at it.
Any platform will inevitably be about people trying to have their voice heard. At least this one is being open about how to find engagement.
I write two wildly different substacks, both written poorly, one about selling off my dad’s collectibles after his passing and one about coffee in Austin, Tx. Neither are going to have really huge audiences because they’re pretty niche. If I wanted to build a media empire I’d probably write about political news since that has a huge audience. But what I can do is write as best I can, engage with writers focusing on other topics I find interesting, and recommend them to my small coterie of readers. As the platform’s audience base grows my portion will also grow.
The guys at ComicLab podcast have good numbers on this. How a popular instagram with over a million followers only has 130 patrons supporting them, and how a shoutout from the popular insta only gets you 2 followers.
Speaking as someone who took 15 months to get to 100 free subscribers, and who worked for every one, I totally get what you are saying. I realised after some months that people weren't going to find me if I didn't do anything. I tried social media, and it helped a little, but only with constant effort to feed the algorithms, and at a cost to my mental health, so I walked away from that.
It does take time and effort to get growth through the Substack network and the opportunities that Substack creates, but it's 100 times better than trying to do it through conventional social media, in my experience. I've found connecting with other writers to be enjoyable - I'm not connecting solely for the purpose of promotion, but because I appreciate learning from and helping other writers.
I'll be honest, it's been slow. I've been doing this for more than 2 1/2 years and I've just broken 1000 free subscribers (Yay!) But I'm starting to find and connect with more writers in my area (science and climate change).
I've never had any direct promotion from Substack, they've never featured me or anything like that and I'm not high on the Discover page or anything like that. But the opportunities, suggestions and encouragement that I've had from Substack have been really helpful to me. I hope that maybe you'll find something that helps you.
This is fair, Linda. I believe cross-promotions, likes and comments need to be authentically felt. Or they will feel again like another empty social media kind of activity.
It took me a whole to get recommended by writers I really appreciate, like Winston, Gary Sharpe and Devaraj Sandberg.
And, still nowadays, growth through Substack is slow and steady.
What I rather sometimes ask myself is if we are all in a Substack bubble? 🧼
I love writing on Substack. Authors like us, which are also readers, are very supportive. But sometimes I ask myself if this is somehow limiting. If we are closing up in our own protected world.
P.s.: in moments of difficult like this, I find helpful to “Just ask”. Ask for help. Ask for recommendations. Ask for cross-promotion.
Well said. I agree with you and all those who mentioned that growing a following on Substack can be difficult for small writers who don't have a big existing audience or don't want to resort to social media promotion.
Ultimately, I think it's important to remember that building a following on any platform takes time and effort, and it's not always easy. But if we stay true to our vision and continue to produce quality work, the audience will come. And in the meantime, we can take comfort in the fact that we are part of a vibrant and supportive community of writers who are all working to create something meaningful.
I totally feel this comment. In my bones. I just left social media as well and feel like I am wandering in the forest hoping for a friendly person to invite me in for some tea!
I am genuinely sorry you haven't grown the way you like but I don't think you're being very fair to Substack. We are definitely not big fish and didn't have huge a number of followers that we could bring with us. About three hundred as I recall.
Yet, today we have over 3,000. And I attribute that to three things -- 1) good writing (I hope!) 2) tons of promotion on social media, especially through Facebook and 3) Substack referrals.
You say you walked away entirely from social media. I get that. I don't love it either by a long shot. But social media is a great way to bring people to your newsletter. If you don't want to do it, totally fine. But that means you are partly responsible for your own slow growth.
As for your comment about not wanting to spend most of your time referring, cross-posting, and commenting on here on Substack, I haven't done nearly as much of that as I should and yet we get subscriptions from Substack ALL the time. Every morning I get up and over night we've had any from two or three to ten new subscribers from the Substack network.
Anyway, just my experience and perspective from soneone who was once where you are now. I hope things pick up for you.
I appreciate your feedback and input. Using your 3 metrics, 1) I too hope my writing is good but there's always the chance it's not. 2) I don't do tons, or any currently, promotion on social media and 3) I haven't had success with Substack referrals, but that doesn't mean I won't going forward.
As I said, I will keep working at it and keep writing content worth reading.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'll tell you what I've told others struggling to grow -- not doing social media is like entering a fight with one hand tied behind your back.
Let me repeat, I do not love doing it. If I didn't need it for Substack, I'd walk away from 90% of it tomorrow. Anyway, food for thought.
Michael, I'm going to jump in her to defend Linda, but I'll tell you first of all that I love your newsletter. You and Brent are doing exactly what's right for you, but I think you've missed the point of Linda's concerns,
This isn't about social media or how popular you are or even about good writing. It's about Substack's new policies and how they're going to affect the Substack writers.
You're inferring that she (and I, since I agree with her) aren't doing our due diligence, or maybe aren't good enough writers, when all we want to know is will we be forced to join the game as it's being played in order to keep our heads above water. They're legitimate questions, and this is the forum to ask them.
Where do you stand on Substack's new programs? How involved will you be in any of them? Do you understand them? Will they have any effect on you?
Hi Ramona, First off, I didn't mean to make anyone feel like they needed to be defended. Apologies for doing that. And I certainly wasn't saying anyone isn't a good enough writer. In that regard I simply said that I hoped what was helping our success was writing good stuff. I haven't read Linda's Substack, but even if I had I would never disparage another writer's work since just because I might not like something doesn't mean a zillon others wouldn't.
Where do I stand on Substack's new programs? If you mean the one inviting other people to start newsletters here themselves, I guess I'd say I'm mildly positive. I' not planning on inviting anyone to join period. And I certainly wouldn't do it just to hopefully get them to refer people to us. But overall I'm for anything that expands Substack because I think that's ultimately good for all of us. The more eyeballs on Substack, the more people there are to discover us.
And we are being discovered and it's not because I'm recommending a lot of other writers (which is for a variety of reasons).
I think of it a bit like the book publishing market, since Brent and I both write books as well. There are waaaaaaaay more books out there for us to compete with than there are Substacks and that's just a fact we have to deal with. (And just as with Substack, we have to hustle our asses off on social media to get anywhere.)
So I just focus on what I can control, what I think will work for us, and what I have time for. And I really do not think what Substack is doing with their new policies -- unless there is something I have missed -- is either going to hurt us badly or help us hugely.
Does that answer your questions? Feel free to ask any follow-ups as I agree with you that this is a great forum to discuss these issues! M
Yes, thanks. I'm coming at this the way I am, not because I'm against supporting, endorsing, or recommending other writers. Far from it. I'm just punchy after coming off of Medium, where the gamesmanship utterly ruined a good source for writers.
The constant push to compete by the Medium owners became a free-for-all, with an overwhelming number of posts centered on either bragging about monetary success or complaining about monetary woes or dissing other writers they didn't consider worthy of the attention.
It was awful, and when I found Substack, I loved the welcoming, non-competitive atmosphere. I love the give and take, the sense of community, and the fact that none of it is forced or coerced.
My concern now is that what happened at Medium will happen here. Maybe not at that same level, but enough to discourage those many good writers who don't have the stomach or the energy for the constant push and pull. It will lead to the inevitable bragging about how many followers some writers have, or how much money they're making, and we writers are already our own worst enemies when it comes to inferiority complexes.
But I won't dwell on it. Linda and I both, I think, simply wanted a look at what might be the downside as these decisions are being made.
Ditto. I'd walk away from 100% of it. After a few months of trying different platforms I have identified for me that Instagram is the way to get new subscribers on to my substack (I have a very targeted group of readers - artists) so I am going to focus completely on that one app going forward, and ditch the rest.
Fascinating to see how many people believe growth is a zero sum game. I started with a very small audience (about 100 people, most of whom I knew IRL) and I've grown that audience 15X in just over two years. I wanted to grow faster, but let's be honest, doesn't everyone want to grow super fast? The thing is, *most* of that growth came by making connections with other writers on Substack -- through cross-promo, recommendations, and leaving thoughtful comments on their pieces. By far and away, the richest growth opportunities came from engagement with writers in my general category -- humor. We've grown together, not at each other's expense.
Yes! This! While my ‘stack is still low in subscribers, it’s growing. Slow growth is the best growth (I’ve finally learned this in my 47 years). And I get such inspiration from engaging in the comments sections of my posts as well as reading and commenting on others’ posts. It sparks my creativity, inspires me to press on, makes me THINK--which is more than I can say for social media. Do I love everything about Substack? Well, no, but I appreciate that I have a place to share my thoughts and experiences with some social aspect. And I love that I can recommend other writers I’ve discovered!
Man your content is the funniest shit in Substack. You deserve every one of the readers you have, and more! Thanks for the inspiration for us new writers !
Your team has consistently improved the writing experience here month by month, and helped return to the internet what made being online so exciting 25 years ago. Namely creativity mixed with discovery and camaraderie.
I’ve much gratitude for your ethos and proactive approach. And here’s to 2023.
So instead of an algorithm, the big-name writers just get to boost up their big-name friends. How does that help me, exactly?
This is a joke. Substack has some of the worst internal discovery I've ever seen in an online service. Yes, it's great if you're already famous and have a following you can bring over, but that's the thing - it's all external. For all the high-flung talk about creating something better (always suspicious when a company is appealing to your emotions first and foremost, by the way), you have created something that is firmly anchored into the existing systems.
Basing your entire discovery process on shoutouts from people with big followings is ridiculous. Say what you will about recommendation algorithms, but they do give newer, smaller creators a puncher's chance when they don't have a lot of resources or a preexisting fanbase. As a fiction writer, I know that my best chance of success is to hope that Stephen King mentions me somewhere, but that can't be the basis for discovery.
Building a service around catering to people with big audiences is fine and probably even wise, but don't do that and then spend all your time pretending that you're making some kind of difference.
Some good points here. One thing that would help discovery is better categories. There isn’t one for gardening, for example, or even lifestyle, which in the magazine world is huge. I have to use “climate change/environment” plus “food/drink.”
Also, some way to weed out dead/inactive Substacks would be good. I’ve searched on “gardening” but then have to weed through to find Substacks with recent content so I don’t waste time subscribing to the ones no longer really posting.
Agree particularly on the ability to weed out dead accounts. Some filters on searches would go a long way to help find relevant Substacks. For example, filters on follower count, filters on post frequency, filters on post recency, and more robust filters on topic. Like, if I could search for a Substack with 10-100 followers, that posts at least every week on a particular topic, and posted today, on a particular topic, that would be super interesting and helpful.
Perhaps if Substack could add an "activity meter" of some kind on search results, like: Posts 2 articles per month on average and 23 days since the last post.
If it has been 234 days since the last post...we can avoid it or even filter on it if Substack would allow it.
The churn and quit rate is rather high on substack due to the mechanics of how the network benefits older and bigger publications. Putting Creators first is not easy. There have to be features that counter balances this growth at all costs network flow.
The Chat feature is a step backward, I think. The whole point of Substack is for us all to SLOW DOWN and read, think, relax and not feel a need to pop off like corks on cheap cold duck. We all enjoy adulation, of course, and like to know we are pleasing others. Other than that, I am really enjoying it all.
We hear you! That is why the writer is in control - you can always turn off Chat for your publication. Readers can also mute notifications for any chat they are a part of. Hopefully that helps some.
This is interesting. I'm not opposed to the idea of Writer Referrals but I do have some reservations:
1. This could certainly help recruit new newsletter writers to the platform. If done with care, it could work but there is the concern that current writers/publishers go for quantity instead of quality in their recruitment efforts if they are incented via receiving an automated Recommendation.
2. I do feel that the automated Recommendation could cheapen the value of the existing Recommendation "economy", especially if these Recommendations are made by people who are really not familiar with each other's work. And if we get a flood of new recommendations will the bar be raised so that 100 Recommendations today will be worth 125 Recommendations 6 months from now?
3 a. Using this recruitment process makes the two parties beholden to each other, which should be considered in terms of a long term relationship.
3 b. Here's the big one for me: I think that newsletter writers who use Writer Recommendations really need to think through the use of this new tool carefully. The key consideration, from my perspective, is that the Recommender needs to be super transparent about how they will benefit from this transaction and that the Recommendation is automated. And so this Recommendation will be out there for a LONG time. So the person accepting the recruitment offer needs to be well educated about this obligation and I hope that any zeal for getting more Recommendations does not overshadow that this should be a trust based, integrity infused action.
Those are my thoughts, happy to hear other points of view.
Hi Mark! These are all great points, and it's on us to pay close attention to the data. I'll share this with our team. A few thoughts:
1. It's not easy to run a Substack! It requires thoughtfulness, quality of writing, and dedication. In order for the referral growth loop to work and for each writer to see mutual success, the writers who starts up a new Substack via a referral code will need to be capable and dedicated to their Substack. I think that will help keep the quality up.
2. The way the recommendation element comes into play is the following:
* I am a reader and see a referral link from a writer I follow, and likely trust and love
* I click that link. When I set up my publication, it has the writer whose referral link I accepted as a default recommendation, which I can always turn off.
* If I take my Substack seriously, the writer who referred me benefits from my growth and success through the recommendation I offer them.
* We also will prompt the writer who recommended me to cross-post and share my first post on Substack, to help me get started.
3. Again, will share this with our team! These are great points, and we will keep iterating on this feature making it better and better with writer feedback as we go. It's not in our best interest to have low-value recommendations, fortunately. It just doesn't make sense in our business model.
The incentive that my friends will recommend me has definitely incentivized me to bring at least two super writers to the platform and tell everyone I know to join. I’ve also built relationships with acquaintances who I found out had Substacks and swapped recommendations. Even thinking of starting a Substack club for 10 writer friends w high quality pubs and w 3k + followers each to help promote each others work
Dear Substack, I like you. I am new, and I am small (under 50 subscribers) but have already seen the positive effects of the growth loop. When someone mentions or recommends me, it gives me a boost that makes me want to pay that generosity forward. And I always do. And with each of these simple transactions of support I have seen growth. Maybe it's only one or two subscribers. But it's something. I had no following before I came SS. Just brought my family and close friends with me. I did have to brave a few comment sections before I started making connections on the platform. But I did make them. And I've been seeing slow (sometimes very slow) but steady growth since then. ❤️
I just started writing on your platform a few months ago. I haven't cross posted to social media because I'm so tired of trying to cut through the clutter and dealing with the never-ending barrage of ads and scams. I just added the ability to subscribe. I subscribe to the theory, if you build it, they will come. Not the theory--the phrase from the movie Field of Dreams which has a catchall meaning which is pretty self-explanatory. I think the more product we produce, the more readers and subscribers we will get. I appreciate your platform and this post giving us tips and I understand the need to make money. What's been most helpful to me is letting my friends know individually that I am writing on your platform and sending them a direct link. I am trying to share my newsletter in a more organic way. I just thought I would share.
Sounds like a cool feature but do writers have the ability to control what is on their referral credits?
What if I refer a writer to the platform and then I find out that the writer is creating something that’s completely different from what they said when I referred them for? Or maybe they decide to create a parody account for my own writing?
I should have control over what I do and don’t take credit for. I’m happy to refer writers to the platform but I might not want automatic credit for what the writer does. Or I might want to remove it later.
Hey Andrew, your in control of your own profile. Referrers can choose which pubs show on their profile under referrals but, referrers are always attributed on the referral's writer profile (e.g. your name would always appear on the writer your refer's profile).
It sounds good but I would be concerned about the potential for abuse. If someone else gets a hold of my referral link, what’s to stop them from claiming that they were inspired by me to create something horrible.
For instance, I wrote about the philosophical issue with Communism and Fascism. I got a lot of push back from pro-Communist people who didn’t like my criticism. What happens if they get a hold of my referral link and decide to create a pro-Fascism Substack saying they’re inspired by me to create it? That I’m actually pro-Fascism?
According to your system of referrals, I would have no way to disassociate myself from someone who would use my referral link for such a purpose. Their profile would specifically link back to me as their referral and they could use that to push the idea that I’m for things I don’t believe in.
Think about your more high profile creators like Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi. What if someone were to get a hold of their referral link? They’re often labeled as right wing propaganda writers by the mainstream media. You’ve opened the door to allowing writers like them to become linked to their trolls.
New writer here! Although I do feel as if it is easier to gain subscribers on Substack than say a place like Youtube, or starting my own website, my growth has been slow. I think this is just a problem with all forms of media, you have to have a following to get more followers, yet how do you initiate a following in the first place? I know many others have this dilemma, and I would love to hear your thoughts.
I know I'm not the only one who is disappointed in the direction Substack is taking now. I think what I liked most about Substack when I came over from Medium was how different it was from that whole competitive, club-like atmosphere over there. I'm a writer, first and foremost, not a social media groupie, which is what this is beginning to feel like.
"Like me and I'll like you" is far removed from the original newsletter model, which is what appeals to me most, mainly because I would rather concentrate on my writing than on hawking my work in a vast crowd of others hawking their works to each other.
As Linda said below, those of us with small subscriber bases don't stand a chance against those who come to Substack with a built-in readership, and now we'll have to try to compete against those who relish the idea of this kind of competition and will spend hours a day working on the give-and-take required to rise to the top.
I know you're working to build Substack into a bigger and better venue for writers, but there is another side to what you're proposing. In an effort to escalate the competition among writers--always a dangerous game--you've opened it up to quantity, not quality.
This may be better for your bottom line, but how, really, does it benefit those of us who are still struggling to build a following by writing what they would want to read? How will they find us, now that much of it depends on how well we play the game?
I think everyone should be on Substack—either as a creator, reader, or community member. A platform that encourages users to elevate and empower one another is a net positive—for individuals and society.
Imagine if Substack was as "essential" as Facebook.
Incentives, gamification, and share tools (like this one) move us in small steps closer to that tipping point.
My audience started out at ZERO. I only told a few people I know IRL, and my mom didn’t even sign up until a few issues in 😆
It was something of an experiment as I kind of just wanted to see how my audience would grow purely on the quality of the writing and content alone. My first article got picked up by OffGuardian a few weeks later, and my audience started snowballing from there.
Wow ok that is amazing! That's quite a journey. Sounds like you got a great break at the start with OffGuardian. Thanks for sharing all these posts with me, lots of food for thought here.
I am delighted to welcome you, Victoria, and I look forward to checking out your content as well!
I did notice most of your posts are paywalled. If you are interested in growing your audience, you may want to consider more of a mixture. I make all of my formal essays available for free so external publications can easily reprint them, which has expanded my audience significantly. I then make special content like podcasts and my new Memes by Themes series available to paid subscribers only.
I could easily increase my paid subs by paywalling the comments as well, but part of my mission is to nurture a community of brave, brilliant, funny, and loving kindreds, and I don’t want to prevent people from participating if they can’t afford it.
Thanks for the feedback! I only just paywalled my previous posts today, and I go back and forward about it all the time in my head on what to do. But you're right, I'll take out the paywall again as I do want people to read my work. I post twice a week, Wednesdays and Sundays. Sundays are for paid subs. I've gone back and forward on comments too, whether to paywall them.
I paywalled my comments because I don't want my paid subscribers to be trolled, but maybe it's not something to be too worried about! I would like to have some sort of income from writing but I just don't have the magic formula from my substack yet. I see publications like yours and others with hundreds of paid subs and I do wonder how I will ever get there.
Thanks for responding so thoughtfully, I really appreciate it!
Haha, that’s a funny coincidence re: the paywalling.
It sounds like you’ve got a good strategy for alternating between free and paid content.
I have found having non-paywalled comments has been extremely valuable for building community (if not income ;-), and numerous commenters have thanked me for it.
Trolling in the comments has been blessedly rare for me. The only time I’ve ever had to remove comments is when there were spambots making the rounds, but Substack seems to have that issue under control now.
If you have any online magazines or other outlets you think would be a good fit for your work, I recommend reaching out to them when you publish a piece you think they would be interested in. Establishing relationships with editors of likeminded publications is a great way to reach new audiences that would be interested in your work. You may even want to consider comping those editors as a token of your appreciation and so they can access your paid content.
It takes time to build a loyal fanbase (especially ones who are willing to pay), but keep producing valuable content, and you’ll get there :-)
I think you make growth sound easier than it is. Sure, for many who have come over to Substack with a big following, they have seen strong and solid growth. For someone not in that position, growth is extremely difficult, and especially having walked away entirely from social media. I can’t stand the social media promotion and effort it takes to try to get maybe one new subscriber, however, growth through Substack alone is also very difficult unless I want to spend most of my time, referring and cross-promoting and commenting, which is beginning to feel like social media all over again. You do a great job promoting the big fish on Substack. It’s us small guys and gals who struggle more than I think you realize.
So many of Substack’s success stories and tips on growing do seem to be like, “Step 1: Write. Step 2: Bring over 100,000 people who already followed you on another platform.” Which is funny, but also a little discouraging. What would Substack promotion of “small fish” look like, though? Not sure there’s any easy solution, but interested in ideas.
I wrote my book 2013 -2018 and serialised it weekly in 100 issues at:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/author/austrian-peter/ Then the site owner, Jim Quinn, asked me to continue and write a weekly 'Letter from Great Britain' for his American readers who were not well informed about us nutters over the pond. This went well and by commenting on other sites like ZeroHedge etc I obtained around 600 readers who asked for a PDF of my book.
In February 2022 a commenter at TBP suggested I start a Substack and sent a link, and off I went - posting on SS and TBP each week. I now comment on other blogs, with a link to one of my Letters, and this is growing steadily. Every week I get some 10 or so referrals from the Substack network - so it is working for me.
And when my book was published in Feb 2022 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358117070_THE_FINANCIAL_JIGSAW_-_PART_1_-_4th_Edition_2020 within this year I have over 3,500 readers.
So my solution is to comment often on other relevant blogs and of course I always try to reply in comments on many other Substacks, with links so I get growth here too. https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/back-to-basics-complex-systems-can?sd=pf
Hope this helps George.
That's also what I was trying to get at. Most of the accolades are toward people who have huge followings. The highlighted writers are the successful ones. Not that we want to focus on a lack of success but I guess it just feels daunting and back to social media type self promotion.
All one needs to do is look back at how they started, when they needed traction-they offered mentorships, even grants, to emerging writers. They could revamp the way they highlight substacks to not favour those with under 500 subscribers, they could dig deeper and highlight substacks that are more niche. There's a ton of things they can do instead of becoming what they were supposedly started out as an alternative to. I've been on this for 2 years and have watched it become another predictable platform, and won't be surprised when it runs the course we've seen with every other digital platform...
Yeah. It’s true.
I agree, Linda, and just wrote something similar. I'm disappointed that Substack is going that way. The idea of a newsletter is that you build your own following made up of people who like what they read and want to be there.
Building a following may be slower, but it's more honest than following someone in hopes that they'll follow you. I've never felt good about going that route. It's why I left Medium to come here.
I totally agree.
Hi Linda! I'm sorry that we've made you feel this way. What in particular about recommendations and referrals feels like they are prioritizing writers with big followings? We have actually seen the opposite with recommendations (they've helped once-smaller writers grow and build an audience that they couldn't otherwise more than they've helped the "big fish") and we have designed referrals to do the same. (Lenny, mentioned here, was not a writer before starting his newsletter btw. He built from scratch!)
We also have a post coming out soon from the person in charge of growing writers' audiences here at Substack recapping all that we've done to help writers in the last year - both things like cross-posts and recommendations that you take some action in setting up, and other things that work on auto-pilot for you without any work from the writer.
Again, I am sorry that I'm maybe being a bit dense here! We just really care about all writers and design our products to help the bigger names and the emergent ones, and am keen to understand more about where the disconnect is showing up.
Recommendations and referrals, in and of itself, isn't prioritizing writers with big followings. It's feeling like I need to spend much time on recommending and referring and connecting that is beginning to feel like social media all over again. Some of the offerings and suggestions feel like they are for much larger subscription bases. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like I continually read about someone bringing over a large following. I get that not everyone can be successful and it takes work to get there. The Chat option isn't viable for me. The Boost option I don't believe is viable as I am too small. Getting recommended as a Substack Read? Maybe down the line? Not sure how you determine that. Anyway, not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I'm a bit frustrated with the process is all but will continue writing and sharing and building a community here, one writer at a time.
I agree, Linda, and I don't want to be a downer, either. I really love most everything about Substack, including the information and feedback from the Substack crew, and I'm not at all against promoting writers I admire here. In fact, I do it as often as I can, including them as recommendations, or as part of my blog rolls, or in comments on their pages or mine.
What worries me is that those things are now becoming Substack-sanctioned competitions, and the writers with the most recommendations or boosts or whatever, will always have an advantage over everyone else.
My feeling is that Substack should make things like Recommendations and Blogrolls available but shouldn't be in the business of running them.
Sharing and caring will always be the best part of building a Substack community, and I think it works well when it remains organic, with writers sincerely promoting their favorites as a courtesy and not as part of an organizational plan.
One look at the mess Medium made of it should be enough to tell the powers at Substack they're on the wrong track.
Well put Ramona.
I think that is our lot, Linda, one at a time. But, hey, quality over quantity!
Agreed!
That’s exactly what I feel as well. It seems like the only way to make it on substack is if you had a huge group on Twitter and you just transfer them over. If you’re organically trying to start on substack without the fear of being kicked off by the big social media platforms it feels like I’m pouring time into nothing. Kind of feels like I should just write into a journal, because the same number of people are reading it lol.
I agree but going to keep writing in my Substack journal and hope something clicks!
There’s definitely some truth in what you say, Linda. I love Substack but I do notice they seem to mostly highlight big names who’ve pulled their thousands of subscribers from other platforms to SS. Nothing inherently wrong with that. And I do see an important difference between SS and regular social media given that it’s exclusively about writers and readers and generally the vibe seems supportive. But yeah: I’d like to see more Stackers who started with 20 friends/family and now have 500 free subs with 65 paying; stuff like that. It’s a rough go for sure; it’s slow. I started with about 50 in late august. Four months later I have 215 subs, 20 paying. I’m growing, for sure. But slowly.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
"... is beginning to feel like social media all over again" sounds spot on.
Linda, I feel your pain b/c I was there once too. (We all were at some point, right?) I'm not one of the big Substack authors, but I've achieved enough of a level of success that I've benefited hugely from the recommendations and other tools that Substack provides and know how effective they can be. If you want to reach out, email me at halfmarathons@substack.com and I'd be happy to help in any way I can.
In the meantime, let me recommend the best Substack newsletter I've come across that deals with exactly this conundrum: Catherine Baab-Muguria's 'Poe Can Save Your Life,' which chronicles the challenges Edgar Allen Poe had selling his own work. It's brilliant, and you can find it here: https://poecansaveyourlife.substack.com
Pay special attention to these posts:
https://poecansaveyourlife.substack.com/p/can-you-plan-to-write-a-classic
https://poecansaveyourlife.substack.com/p/what-sells-books-and-why-should-you
(The last one deals with books, but has so much that's of value in it to newsletter writers too.)
Thanks for recommending 'Poe Can Save Your Life'. I love it and probably wouldn't have found it otherwise. I'm all for recommending newsletters that speak to us this way. I just don't want us to get into recommending everyone just so they'll recommend me. Then it turns into a contest, complete with hard feelings, etc. and I would hate to see Substack devolve into that sort of space.
Maybe. My approach with recommendations is that I recommend only newsletters that I'm genuinely enthusiastic about and read; I wouldn't expect anyone to recommend mine unless they felt the same way. For me, it's a win-win, and it's fun. As long as you treat it that way, I don't see how they can be anything but a boon.
Yes, exactly. That's my approach, too. My point is, we already do this on our own. Substack should encourage it, but should they be in the business of institutionalizing it? Maybe I'm reading what they're doing all wrong, but I see some problems ahead if that's the case.
It's worth trying -- you can always turn it off later. Also worth keeping in mind: it's all voluntary, it's all opt-in. No one can force you to recommend any newsletter or publication you don't want to (you have to choose each one individually in your dashboard), and vice-versa.
Yes, I understand that. But again, that's not the point.
Thank you for these posts you shared. Thoroughly enjoyed them and there were some great takeaways.
You’re most welcome!
I can totally understand your perspective here, but it’s actually a lot easier than you may think. Trying to get a new subscriber from Twitter or Instagram is a pretty long path, but a user already on Substack is much easier to coax since they’re already using the platform.
I didn't come to Substack to join a club. Is that the way it will be now? A never-ending round of Substackers giving thumbs up to other Substackers--like they do at Medium? There will always be too many who are left out for one reason or another. It's a competition, no matter how you look at it.
Any platform will inevitably be about people trying to have their voice heard. At least this one is being open about how to find engagement.
I write two wildly different substacks, both written poorly, one about selling off my dad’s collectibles after his passing and one about coffee in Austin, Tx. Neither are going to have really huge audiences because they’re pretty niche. If I wanted to build a media empire I’d probably write about political news since that has a huge audience. But what I can do is write as best I can, engage with writers focusing on other topics I find interesting, and recommend them to my small coterie of readers. As the platform’s audience base grows my portion will also grow.
Well, that isn't how I look at it or how it's been for me.
The guys at ComicLab podcast have good numbers on this. How a popular instagram with over a million followers only has 130 patrons supporting them, and how a shoutout from the popular insta only gets you 2 followers.
Speaking as someone who took 15 months to get to 100 free subscribers, and who worked for every one, I totally get what you are saying. I realised after some months that people weren't going to find me if I didn't do anything. I tried social media, and it helped a little, but only with constant effort to feed the algorithms, and at a cost to my mental health, so I walked away from that.
It does take time and effort to get growth through the Substack network and the opportunities that Substack creates, but it's 100 times better than trying to do it through conventional social media, in my experience. I've found connecting with other writers to be enjoyable - I'm not connecting solely for the purpose of promotion, but because I appreciate learning from and helping other writers.
I'll be honest, it's been slow. I've been doing this for more than 2 1/2 years and I've just broken 1000 free subscribers (Yay!) But I'm starting to find and connect with more writers in my area (science and climate change).
I've never had any direct promotion from Substack, they've never featured me or anything like that and I'm not high on the Discover page or anything like that. But the opportunities, suggestions and encouragement that I've had from Substack have been really helpful to me. I hope that maybe you'll find something that helps you.
This is fair, Linda. I believe cross-promotions, likes and comments need to be authentically felt. Or they will feel again like another empty social media kind of activity.
It took me a whole to get recommended by writers I really appreciate, like Winston, Gary Sharpe and Devaraj Sandberg.
And, still nowadays, growth through Substack is slow and steady.
What I rather sometimes ask myself is if we are all in a Substack bubble? 🧼
I love writing on Substack. Authors like us, which are also readers, are very supportive. But sometimes I ask myself if this is somehow limiting. If we are closing up in our own protected world.
P.s.: in moments of difficult like this, I find helpful to “Just ask”. Ask for help. Ask for recommendations. Ask for cross-promotion.
https://livmkk.substack.com/p/just-ask
Well said. I agree with you and all those who mentioned that growing a following on Substack can be difficult for small writers who don't have a big existing audience or don't want to resort to social media promotion.
Ultimately, I think it's important to remember that building a following on any platform takes time and effort, and it's not always easy. But if we stay true to our vision and continue to produce quality work, the audience will come. And in the meantime, we can take comfort in the fact that we are part of a vibrant and supportive community of writers who are all working to create something meaningful.
Very beautifully said Taryn, thank you.
I totally feel this comment. In my bones. I just left social media as well and feel like I am wandering in the forest hoping for a friendly person to invite me in for some tea!
Danny, I invite you to tea:)
Sounds like you should work harder!
Probably so.
Ignore.
Hi Linda,
I am genuinely sorry you haven't grown the way you like but I don't think you're being very fair to Substack. We are definitely not big fish and didn't have huge a number of followers that we could bring with us. About three hundred as I recall.
Yet, today we have over 3,000. And I attribute that to three things -- 1) good writing (I hope!) 2) tons of promotion on social media, especially through Facebook and 3) Substack referrals.
You say you walked away entirely from social media. I get that. I don't love it either by a long shot. But social media is a great way to bring people to your newsletter. If you don't want to do it, totally fine. But that means you are partly responsible for your own slow growth.
As for your comment about not wanting to spend most of your time referring, cross-posting, and commenting on here on Substack, I haven't done nearly as much of that as I should and yet we get subscriptions from Substack ALL the time. Every morning I get up and over night we've had any from two or three to ten new subscribers from the Substack network.
Anyway, just my experience and perspective from soneone who was once where you are now. I hope things pick up for you.
I appreciate your feedback and input. Using your 3 metrics, 1) I too hope my writing is good but there's always the chance it's not. 2) I don't do tons, or any currently, promotion on social media and 3) I haven't had success with Substack referrals, but that doesn't mean I won't going forward.
As I said, I will keep working at it and keep writing content worth reading.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'll tell you what I've told others struggling to grow -- not doing social media is like entering a fight with one hand tied behind your back.
Let me repeat, I do not love doing it. If I didn't need it for Substack, I'd walk away from 90% of it tomorrow. Anyway, food for thought.
Michael, I'm going to jump in her to defend Linda, but I'll tell you first of all that I love your newsletter. You and Brent are doing exactly what's right for you, but I think you've missed the point of Linda's concerns,
This isn't about social media or how popular you are or even about good writing. It's about Substack's new policies and how they're going to affect the Substack writers.
You're inferring that she (and I, since I agree with her) aren't doing our due diligence, or maybe aren't good enough writers, when all we want to know is will we be forced to join the game as it's being played in order to keep our heads above water. They're legitimate questions, and this is the forum to ask them.
Where do you stand on Substack's new programs? How involved will you be in any of them? Do you understand them? Will they have any effect on you?
That's all we're asking here.
Hi Ramona, First off, I didn't mean to make anyone feel like they needed to be defended. Apologies for doing that. And I certainly wasn't saying anyone isn't a good enough writer. In that regard I simply said that I hoped what was helping our success was writing good stuff. I haven't read Linda's Substack, but even if I had I would never disparage another writer's work since just because I might not like something doesn't mean a zillon others wouldn't.
Where do I stand on Substack's new programs? If you mean the one inviting other people to start newsletters here themselves, I guess I'd say I'm mildly positive. I' not planning on inviting anyone to join period. And I certainly wouldn't do it just to hopefully get them to refer people to us. But overall I'm for anything that expands Substack because I think that's ultimately good for all of us. The more eyeballs on Substack, the more people there are to discover us.
And we are being discovered and it's not because I'm recommending a lot of other writers (which is for a variety of reasons).
I think of it a bit like the book publishing market, since Brent and I both write books as well. There are waaaaaaaay more books out there for us to compete with than there are Substacks and that's just a fact we have to deal with. (And just as with Substack, we have to hustle our asses off on social media to get anywhere.)
So I just focus on what I can control, what I think will work for us, and what I have time for. And I really do not think what Substack is doing with their new policies -- unless there is something I have missed -- is either going to hurt us badly or help us hugely.
Does that answer your questions? Feel free to ask any follow-ups as I agree with you that this is a great forum to discuss these issues! M
Yes, thanks. I'm coming at this the way I am, not because I'm against supporting, endorsing, or recommending other writers. Far from it. I'm just punchy after coming off of Medium, where the gamesmanship utterly ruined a good source for writers.
The constant push to compete by the Medium owners became a free-for-all, with an overwhelming number of posts centered on either bragging about monetary success or complaining about monetary woes or dissing other writers they didn't consider worthy of the attention.
It was awful, and when I found Substack, I loved the welcoming, non-competitive atmosphere. I love the give and take, the sense of community, and the fact that none of it is forced or coerced.
My concern now is that what happened at Medium will happen here. Maybe not at that same level, but enough to discourage those many good writers who don't have the stomach or the energy for the constant push and pull. It will lead to the inevitable bragging about how many followers some writers have, or how much money they're making, and we writers are already our own worst enemies when it comes to inferiority complexes.
But I won't dwell on it. Linda and I both, I think, simply wanted a look at what might be the downside as these decisions are being made.
Thanks again. And thanks for subscribing!
Ditto. I'd walk away from 100% of it. After a few months of trying different platforms I have identified for me that Instagram is the way to get new subscribers on to my substack (I have a very targeted group of readers - artists) so I am going to focus completely on that one app going forward, and ditch the rest.
Fascinating to see how many people believe growth is a zero sum game. I started with a very small audience (about 100 people, most of whom I knew IRL) and I've grown that audience 15X in just over two years. I wanted to grow faster, but let's be honest, doesn't everyone want to grow super fast? The thing is, *most* of that growth came by making connections with other writers on Substack -- through cross-promo, recommendations, and leaving thoughtful comments on their pieces. By far and away, the richest growth opportunities came from engagement with writers in my general category -- humor. We've grown together, not at each other's expense.
So agree!
Yes! This! While my ‘stack is still low in subscribers, it’s growing. Slow growth is the best growth (I’ve finally learned this in my 47 years). And I get such inspiration from engaging in the comments sections of my posts as well as reading and commenting on others’ posts. It sparks my creativity, inspires me to press on, makes me THINK--which is more than I can say for social media. Do I love everything about Substack? Well, no, but I appreciate that I have a place to share my thoughts and experiences with some social aspect. And I love that I can recommend other writers I’ve discovered!
Exactly 🔥🔥🔥❤️
Man your content is the funniest shit in Substack. You deserve every one of the readers you have, and more! Thanks for the inspiration for us new writers !
Thank you! That’s very kind of you to say.
This is also true. I see both sides 🔥🔥🙌😆
You folks are kick-ass.
I’m heading into my 3rd year on SS.
Your team has consistently improved the writing experience here month by month, and helped return to the internet what made being online so exciting 25 years ago. Namely creativity mixed with discovery and camaraderie.
I’ve much gratitude for your ethos and proactive approach. And here’s to 2023.
Thank you, Frederick! Happy holidays. And absolutely - more to come in 2023.
Agreed Frederick: My mantra: 'Promotion by Attraction'.
❤️❤️
So instead of an algorithm, the big-name writers just get to boost up their big-name friends. How does that help me, exactly?
This is a joke. Substack has some of the worst internal discovery I've ever seen in an online service. Yes, it's great if you're already famous and have a following you can bring over, but that's the thing - it's all external. For all the high-flung talk about creating something better (always suspicious when a company is appealing to your emotions first and foremost, by the way), you have created something that is firmly anchored into the existing systems.
Basing your entire discovery process on shoutouts from people with big followings is ridiculous. Say what you will about recommendation algorithms, but they do give newer, smaller creators a puncher's chance when they don't have a lot of resources or a preexisting fanbase. As a fiction writer, I know that my best chance of success is to hope that Stephen King mentions me somewhere, but that can't be the basis for discovery.
Building a service around catering to people with big audiences is fine and probably even wise, but don't do that and then spend all your time pretending that you're making some kind of difference.
Some good points here. One thing that would help discovery is better categories. There isn’t one for gardening, for example, or even lifestyle, which in the magazine world is huge. I have to use “climate change/environment” plus “food/drink.”
Also, some way to weed out dead/inactive Substacks would be good. I’ve searched on “gardening” but then have to weed through to find Substacks with recent content so I don’t waste time subscribing to the ones no longer really posting.
Agree particularly on the ability to weed out dead accounts. Some filters on searches would go a long way to help find relevant Substacks. For example, filters on follower count, filters on post frequency, filters on post recency, and more robust filters on topic. Like, if I could search for a Substack with 10-100 followers, that posts at least every week on a particular topic, and posted today, on a particular topic, that would be super interesting and helpful.
Perhaps if Substack could add an "activity meter" of some kind on search results, like: Posts 2 articles per month on average and 23 days since the last post.
If it has been 234 days since the last post...we can avoid it or even filter on it if Substack would allow it.
All we have now is "Launched a year ago..."
I think this is a fair comment, I think the categories could be adjusted.
I agree. More and slightly more specific categories.
Have you tried mentioning this in the Substack office hours? I think that might get it more attention than the comments on this post. Just an idea.
Louise, not this category idea, as I had bigger fish to fry the last time I could make an office hrs slot, but it’s on my list for next time.
The categories are pretty lame.
The churn and quit rate is rather high on substack due to the mechanics of how the network benefits older and bigger publications. Putting Creators first is not easy. There have to be features that counter balances this growth at all costs network flow.
The Chat feature is a step backward, I think. The whole point of Substack is for us all to SLOW DOWN and read, think, relax and not feel a need to pop off like corks on cheap cold duck. We all enjoy adulation, of course, and like to know we are pleasing others. Other than that, I am really enjoying it all.
God bless all of you and Merry Christmas.
We hear you! That is why the writer is in control - you can always turn off Chat for your publication. Readers can also mute notifications for any chat they are a part of. Hopefully that helps some.
Oh, I am just gripping in my Ludditey, curmudgeonly way. I know these things do not have to be used.
That's enough coal, Mr. Cratchit!
😆😆
This is interesting. I'm not opposed to the idea of Writer Referrals but I do have some reservations:
1. This could certainly help recruit new newsletter writers to the platform. If done with care, it could work but there is the concern that current writers/publishers go for quantity instead of quality in their recruitment efforts if they are incented via receiving an automated Recommendation.
2. I do feel that the automated Recommendation could cheapen the value of the existing Recommendation "economy", especially if these Recommendations are made by people who are really not familiar with each other's work. And if we get a flood of new recommendations will the bar be raised so that 100 Recommendations today will be worth 125 Recommendations 6 months from now?
3 a. Using this recruitment process makes the two parties beholden to each other, which should be considered in terms of a long term relationship.
3 b. Here's the big one for me: I think that newsletter writers who use Writer Recommendations really need to think through the use of this new tool carefully. The key consideration, from my perspective, is that the Recommender needs to be super transparent about how they will benefit from this transaction and that the Recommendation is automated. And so this Recommendation will be out there for a LONG time. So the person accepting the recruitment offer needs to be well educated about this obligation and I hope that any zeal for getting more Recommendations does not overshadow that this should be a trust based, integrity infused action.
Those are my thoughts, happy to hear other points of view.
Hi Mark! These are all great points, and it's on us to pay close attention to the data. I'll share this with our team. A few thoughts:
1. It's not easy to run a Substack! It requires thoughtfulness, quality of writing, and dedication. In order for the referral growth loop to work and for each writer to see mutual success, the writers who starts up a new Substack via a referral code will need to be capable and dedicated to their Substack. I think that will help keep the quality up.
2. The way the recommendation element comes into play is the following:
* I am a reader and see a referral link from a writer I follow, and likely trust and love
* I click that link. When I set up my publication, it has the writer whose referral link I accepted as a default recommendation, which I can always turn off.
* If I take my Substack seriously, the writer who referred me benefits from my growth and success through the recommendation I offer them.
* We also will prompt the writer who recommended me to cross-post and share my first post on Substack, to help me get started.
3. Again, will share this with our team! These are great points, and we will keep iterating on this feature making it better and better with writer feedback as we go. It's not in our best interest to have low-value recommendations, fortunately. It just doesn't make sense in our business model.
Hi Bailey, thanks for your reply!
The incentive that my friends will recommend me has definitely incentivized me to bring at least two super writers to the platform and tell everyone I know to join. I’ve also built relationships with acquaintances who I found out had Substacks and swapped recommendations. Even thinking of starting a Substack club for 10 writer friends w high quality pubs and w 3k + followers each to help promote each others work
🫰🫰🫰🔥
Dear Substack, I like you. I am new, and I am small (under 50 subscribers) but have already seen the positive effects of the growth loop. When someone mentions or recommends me, it gives me a boost that makes me want to pay that generosity forward. And I always do. And with each of these simple transactions of support I have seen growth. Maybe it's only one or two subscribers. But it's something. I had no following before I came SS. Just brought my family and close friends with me. I did have to brave a few comment sections before I started making connections on the platform. But I did make them. And I've been seeing slow (sometimes very slow) but steady growth since then. ❤️
That’s awesome Meg 🔥
❤️❤️❤️
I just started writing on your platform a few months ago. I haven't cross posted to social media because I'm so tired of trying to cut through the clutter and dealing with the never-ending barrage of ads and scams. I just added the ability to subscribe. I subscribe to the theory, if you build it, they will come. Not the theory--the phrase from the movie Field of Dreams which has a catchall meaning which is pretty self-explanatory. I think the more product we produce, the more readers and subscribers we will get. I appreciate your platform and this post giving us tips and I understand the need to make money. What's been most helpful to me is letting my friends know individually that I am writing on your platform and sending them a direct link. I am trying to share my newsletter in a more organic way. I just thought I would share.
Amen 🙏
Sounds like a cool feature but do writers have the ability to control what is on their referral credits?
What if I refer a writer to the platform and then I find out that the writer is creating something that’s completely different from what they said when I referred them for? Or maybe they decide to create a parody account for my own writing?
I should have control over what I do and don’t take credit for. I’m happy to refer writers to the platform but I might not want automatic credit for what the writer does. Or I might want to remove it later.
Hey Andrew, your in control of your own profile. Referrers can choose which pubs show on their profile under referrals but, referrers are always attributed on the referral's writer profile (e.g. your name would always appear on the writer your refer's profile).
How does that feel to you?
It sounds good but I would be concerned about the potential for abuse. If someone else gets a hold of my referral link, what’s to stop them from claiming that they were inspired by me to create something horrible.
For instance, I wrote about the philosophical issue with Communism and Fascism. I got a lot of push back from pro-Communist people who didn’t like my criticism. What happens if they get a hold of my referral link and decide to create a pro-Fascism Substack saying they’re inspired by me to create it? That I’m actually pro-Fascism?
According to your system of referrals, I would have no way to disassociate myself from someone who would use my referral link for such a purpose. Their profile would specifically link back to me as their referral and they could use that to push the idea that I’m for things I don’t believe in.
Think about your more high profile creators like Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi. What if someone were to get a hold of their referral link? They’re often labeled as right wing propaganda writers by the mainstream media. You’ve opened the door to allowing writers like them to become linked to their trolls.
Excellent points, Andrew. I will be more cautious in my use of such tools.
By the way, thanks for inviting me to Substack! My newsletter “Inspiring 20th Century Tyrants” has been extremely popular. All thanks to you!
❤️❤️🔥
Great thoughts!
New writer here! Although I do feel as if it is easier to gain subscribers on Substack than say a place like Youtube, or starting my own website, my growth has been slow. I think this is just a problem with all forms of media, you have to have a following to get more followers, yet how do you initiate a following in the first place? I know many others have this dilemma, and I would love to hear your thoughts.
Step ahead of you on this one, Substack. I’ve already referred quite a few friends😄
That's awesome @Michael!
I know I'm not the only one who is disappointed in the direction Substack is taking now. I think what I liked most about Substack when I came over from Medium was how different it was from that whole competitive, club-like atmosphere over there. I'm a writer, first and foremost, not a social media groupie, which is what this is beginning to feel like.
"Like me and I'll like you" is far removed from the original newsletter model, which is what appeals to me most, mainly because I would rather concentrate on my writing than on hawking my work in a vast crowd of others hawking their works to each other.
As Linda said below, those of us with small subscriber bases don't stand a chance against those who come to Substack with a built-in readership, and now we'll have to try to compete against those who relish the idea of this kind of competition and will spend hours a day working on the give-and-take required to rise to the top.
I know you're working to build Substack into a bigger and better venue for writers, but there is another side to what you're proposing. In an effort to escalate the competition among writers--always a dangerous game--you've opened it up to quantity, not quality.
This may be better for your bottom line, but how, really, does it benefit those of us who are still struggling to build a following by writing what they would want to read? How will they find us, now that much of it depends on how well we play the game?
I think everyone should be on Substack—either as a creator, reader, or community member. A platform that encourages users to elevate and empower one another is a net positive—for individuals and society.
Imagine if Substack was as "essential" as Facebook.
Incentives, gamification, and share tools (like this one) move us in small steps closer to that tipping point.
100%
🔥🔥🫰🫰
Whoa, wait, transparency in the growth algorithm of a social media website???
Weird.
The Recommendations feature has brought me 10k subscribers—nearly half of my 22k mailing list! Thank you, Substack!! 🙏💓🤗
Wow wow wow!!
Can I ask you Margaret how long you have been on Substack and did you bring a hefty audience with you?
My first post was April 25, 2021:
• “A Primer for the Propagandized: Fear Is the Mind-Killer” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized)
My audience started out at ZERO. I only told a few people I know IRL, and my mom didn’t even sign up until a few issues in 😆
It was something of an experiment as I kind of just wanted to see how my audience would grow purely on the quality of the writing and content alone. My first article got picked up by OffGuardian a few weeks later, and my audience started snowballing from there.
It wasn’t until Substack introduced its Recommendations feature that my audience truly exploded, though, and I am especially honored to be recommended by some of the people I respect most in the world, such as Dr. Pierre Kory (https://pierrekory.substack.com/) and Dr. Tess Lawrie (https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/), who inspired me to launch my Profiles in Courage series (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/profiles-in-courage-dr-tess-lawrie) and whom I crowned the Queen of Integrity in my one-year anniversary post:
• “My One-Year Substack Anniversary! + In Five Years (a Short Story)” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/my-one-year-substack-anniversary)
Wow ok that is amazing! That's quite a journey. Sounds like you got a great break at the start with OffGuardian. Thanks for sharing all these posts with me, lots of food for thought here.
I am delighted to welcome you, Victoria, and I look forward to checking out your content as well!
I did notice most of your posts are paywalled. If you are interested in growing your audience, you may want to consider more of a mixture. I make all of my formal essays available for free so external publications can easily reprint them, which has expanded my audience significantly. I then make special content like podcasts and my new Memes by Themes series available to paid subscribers only.
I could easily increase my paid subs by paywalling the comments as well, but part of my mission is to nurture a community of brave, brilliant, funny, and loving kindreds, and I don’t want to prevent people from participating if they can’t afford it.
Thanks for the feedback! I only just paywalled my previous posts today, and I go back and forward about it all the time in my head on what to do. But you're right, I'll take out the paywall again as I do want people to read my work. I post twice a week, Wednesdays and Sundays. Sundays are for paid subs. I've gone back and forward on comments too, whether to paywall them.
I paywalled my comments because I don't want my paid subscribers to be trolled, but maybe it's not something to be too worried about! I would like to have some sort of income from writing but I just don't have the magic formula from my substack yet. I see publications like yours and others with hundreds of paid subs and I do wonder how I will ever get there.
Thanks for responding so thoughtfully, I really appreciate it!
Haha, that’s a funny coincidence re: the paywalling.
It sounds like you’ve got a good strategy for alternating between free and paid content.
I have found having non-paywalled comments has been extremely valuable for building community (if not income ;-), and numerous commenters have thanked me for it.
Trolling in the comments has been blessedly rare for me. The only time I’ve ever had to remove comments is when there were spambots making the rounds, but Substack seems to have that issue under control now.
If you have any online magazines or other outlets you think would be a good fit for your work, I recommend reaching out to them when you publish a piece you think they would be interested in. Establishing relationships with editors of likeminded publications is a great way to reach new audiences that would be interested in your work. You may even want to consider comping those editors as a token of your appreciation and so they can access your paid content.
It takes time to build a loyal fanbase (especially ones who are willing to pay), but keep producing valuable content, and you’ll get there :-)
I am always trying to think of new ways to reward my paid subs without making important content inaccessible. A few months ago, I launched a “Dissident Dialogues” interview series (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/dissident-dialogues-cj-hopkins), and I made the Q&As available in a “rolling” version (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/dissident-dialogues-cj-hopkins-rolling) to paid subscribers as the conversation unfolded. I haven’t had time to do those for a while but am about to launch the next interview in that series, so I’ll see if that helps entice new paid subs.
🔥🔥🔥🫰🫰❤️👍
Wow!!!!! That's seriously impressive!
I have Substack and my wonderful recommenders to thank!